Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
whips talking about vote counts but, you know, foreign nations and people in the pentagon can count votes too. we've never had a defense secretary with this many opposing votes. now this is something he can shake off, but it's going to take some time. >> woodruff: that's right. i mean he has the fewest confirming volts of any defense secretary since the job was created. mark thompson, how does that affect his ability to do his job? >> well, it will depend. it will affect it in a big way if he acts as he did in his con for megs hearing which by all accounts he did not do well. conversely, i talked to people in the pentagon. the lower in ranks you go, the more they like this guy. the more they like the sense that an enlisted man is going to run the building. if you can use that as a springboard he's facing immense challenges from sequestration to afghanistan to a nuclear iran but it's an opportunity for him to seize the moment. if he does, people will forget this pretty quickly i think. >> woodruff: what about the sour relations or whatever lingering effect there is from this loud vot
. and with panetta's departure from the pentagon today, plus clinton's last week and petraeus's resignation in 22, general dempsey is the only known remaining advocate of arming the rebels still in a top advisory role. i'm joined who served in the obama administration state departments and is now dean of the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins university. and andrew tabler, a senior fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. what were the main schools of thought. how did the camps break down in this argument inside the administration on what to do about syria, andrew? >> basically you have a discussion about syria about all the different options. and it really cos down to this. the wte hou was hedgingment they really did not want to get involved in syria. they have a firm policy to stay out of the middle east and would like to pull back. at the same time the agencies that deal with syria and the problem there, which is growing and mushrooming, the state department, cia and to a certain extent the department of defence all of which were throwing their hands up i
in the state department or the pentagon are there. i think at some point the united states government and the white house have to make a decision that syria is an actual danger to america's national security interests. it is not something we can wash our hands from. and there are serious dangers and implications to the united states and the president actually to ask its national security team for realistic options that then he request gather his team and debate and decide about. there hasn't, i think, been a serious debate even with thunited stasgovernment as to what might be our three top options what are the costs and benefits of each. and if we were to pursue one of them, how would we do it. >> is there a legitimate argument that this destabilizes turkey to some degree, an important country to the united states, and a nato ally, andrew. >> absolutely. thousands of syrians go over the border into turkey every day. and it's very easy for pkk fighters, kurdish fighters to meld into those refugees, to go across the border and carry out terrorists attacks insidef tuey. no government in
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)